I've said it before and I'll say it again. NEVER change to an OS that has been on the market for less than a year. For Microsoft, I would stretch that to two years (anyone remember Windows ME?). The only exception to this would be a "test" machine for running this through all sorts of tests before putting it on your main personal PC.

The touchscreen feature seems geared toward having everyone upgrade their LCDs to new touchscreen LCDs.

-- Posted by Thom on Tue, Jun 3, 2008, at 3:46 PM

Thom,

I really see this market for people that use the PC for media viewing and general browsing. When it comes to graphics, you will a really highend screen that can read very fine dpi. And the LCDs will be around 1000-2400 to get a decent size one. I currently, use a 27-inch one and that would cost about 6000 roughly for a touch model.

I went with Vista 64 Ultimate and so far I have been pleased once the service pack was released. But you need a minimum of 4 Gigs of Ram to run anything juicy. I have 8 Gigs and I can run pretty much anything wide open.

With Windows 7, I don't see anything really worthwhile that improves on Vista other than the touch portion.

-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Tue, Jun 3, 2008, at 5:32 PM

Sounds nice...But I will stay with just touching my key board...I would never ever be able to afford something like that...

-- Posted by rebelrose on Tue, Jun 3, 2008, at 7:25 PM

rebelrose - The majority of users won't be able to afford a touch-screen until they come down in price.

EM - I've not tried Vista yet because a rep from MS was telling us that they were forced to go to it before it was out. He said that their entire staff was unthrilled with it. Granted these weren't real IT people so much as a sales staff, but those are the people that I would expect to have liked it.

Several of the people in our IT dept. have tried it and I've yet to find anyone that I know that likes it (aside from the recognition of additional RAM).

The whole "don't use Vista" argument will be moot in about 3 weeks anyway since that's the drop-dead date for vendors to stop offering XP with their new PCs...from what I understand. I'll try it out on a test machine (once I get another one put together), but I won't put that on our main PCs at home until I check it out thoroughly.

-- Posted by Thom on Tue, Jun 3, 2008, at 8:29 PM

Please know, I am not recommending the 32-bit version whatsoever, the 64-bit however has been 100% stable for the past month. The networking is great, the interface is smarter than I expected. I don't like the program menu as much as Xp. But you can organize that pretty much anyway you want with a little bit of tweaking.

I haven't had any issues with drivers, I been using EVGA 680i SLI, 2 8800GTX SLI, 8 Gigs of PC6400 DDR2 ram, and Dual Raptors and have had no problems with drivers whatsoever. The only issue I have is my UPS that is rated for 1500 only lasts 4 minutes before I need to shut it down; robably the 1000 Watt PSU is the culprit.

-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Tue, Jun 3, 2008, at 9:19 PM

Yeah, I don't even bother with anything but my CPU and main monitor on my UPS. everything else is in the suppressor side since I don't need both monitors to shut everything down. I can get about 12 minutes on mine. Since we've moved up here though I really only need about 5-10 seconds of juice though. The power flickers quite a bit, but rarely goes completely out.

I think it's interesting that they're forcing people to go to Vista knowing that they've got a new OS coming out. It's good that they're giving them the opportunity to downgrade to XP if they don't like Vista, but still wrong in my opinion.

Steve Mills and his wife have one daughter and live on a farm outside of Bell Buckle. They previously owned two coffee/ice cream shops, currently operate an internet sales company and teach classes, but his primary job involves the paper industry worldwide. Hobbies and interests lie in gardening, photography, recorded music and of course, their pets.